Most Common Evolutionary Mistake

Due to a comment made in another section, I felt the need to post this information to clear up the most common error people who don't know what evolution is, make about evolution.

MISTAKE ONE:

Evolution makes no comment, statement, or hypothesis about the origin of life on this planet. So many of those unfamiliar with evolutionary theory make this mistake.

Evolution is a populus of evolutionary agents, the most common of which is natural selection. Each agent that is widely considered part of evolution has long since been proven in every niche, species, and ecosystem on this planet. They're certainly not up for much scientific debate UNLESS you're attempting to rewrite the entire backbone of BIOLOGY. And as they say:

"Outrage claims require outrage evidence". So, don't dare. I wouldn't

So, don't make the mistake of using the origin of earthly life against evolution. Evolutions deals only with what happens to the life, not how it began.

The origin of life on this planet is an entire different entity of discussion. There are many theories of which none are hard and fast. It's certainly open to ideas.

MISTAKE TWO:

Evolution is not "the process by which one species breeds a new species". This is merely a result of evolution.

Many dictionary definitions do define it as this. I wouldn't say they're "wrong", but they're indeed focusing on the result of evolution rather than what it is itelf.

As stated, it's a series of agents, all of which have been found to exist in every niche and ecosystem on this planet.

At certain points, a given species changes "evolves, meaning its being changes by evolutionary agents" to the point where it can't reproduce successfully with the rest of what once was a population.

The details and terminology here I can define if needed, otherwise it's not so important.

The important thing to know is changing of a population into one or more new species is the MAIN RESULT of evolution. But it's not the most common result. Indeed with every newborn evolution has occurred, yet only after millions of years does a new species arise.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist yet only after millions of years does a new species arise.

That only true for "macro"-organism, micro-organism take less years to create a new species. To be more logical, you should of stated your measument in generations rather than years. Micro and macro organism take roughly the same number of generation to create a "new" species.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist Due to a comment made in another section, I felt the need to post this information to clear up the most common error people who don't know what evolution is, make about evolution.

MISTAKE ONE:

Evolution makes no comment, statement, or hypothesis about the origin of life on this planet. So many of those unfamiliar with evolutionary theory make this mistake.

Evolution is a populus of evolutionary agents, the most common of which is natural selection. Each agent that is widely considered part of evolution has long since been proven in every niche, species, and ecosystem on this planet. They're certainly not up for much scientific debate UNLESS you're attempting to rewrite the entire backbone of BIOLOGY. And as they say:

"Outrage claims require outrage evidence". So, don't dare. I wouldn't

So, don't make the mistake of using the origin of earthly life against evolution. Evolutions deals only with what happens to the life, not how it began.

The origin of life on this planet is an entire different entity of discussion. There are many theories of which none are hard and fast. It's certainly open to ideas.

MISTAKE TWO:

Evolution is not "the process by which one species breeds a new species". This is merely a result of evolution.

Many dictionary definitions do define it as this. I wouldn't say they're "wrong", but they're indeed focusing on the result of evolution rather than what it is itelf.

As stated, it's a series of agents, all of which have been found to exist in every niche and ecosystem on this planet.

At certain points, a given species changes "evolves, meaning its being changes by evolutionary agents" to the point where it can't reproduce successfully with the rest of what once was a population.

The details and terminology here I can define if needed, otherwise it's not so important.

The important thing to know is changing of a population into one or more new species is the MAIN RESULT of evolution. But it's not the most common result. Indeed with every newborn evolution has occurred, yet only after millions of years does a new species arise.

I have to point out your mistaken use of the word "Evolutionary" in your sub-heading. In fact the whole sub-heading makes no sense whatsoever.

Here it is again for your own critical analysis:

"Most Common Evolutionary Mistake"

what are you trying to say here?

When I read the rest of your claims they still do not live up to the task of explaining your sub-heading.

In fact, all of evolution is based on mistakes... trials and errors... so, I expected your following dissertation to address that fact... the most common evolutionary trials and errors.

But, all you've addressed is the few, meandering people that think evolution has to do with the origin of life... when it only has to do with the origin of species. You have also neglected to mention this fact.

However.... the word "evolution" can be used metaphorically to describe non-biological processes... like combinations of minerals or molecules or atoms that have "evolved" to a point where they resemble simple amino acids, neucleotids and proteins... this "evolution" of inanimate, non-biological materials toward a form of life can be refered to as an evolution... in metaphorical terms... and the results of this "evolution" is called life. And life, as we all know, continues to evolve... in the manner that seems prevailent in our relativistic universe.